5 ms·

> If teachers unions didn't oppose standardized testing This of course assumes that standardized testing is actually a good mechanism for measuring outcomes.

> If teachers unions didn't oppose standardized testing This of course assumes that standardized testing is actually a good mechanism for measuring outcomes. Which IMO is an extremely dubious assertion. A lot of people who opt-out of the public school system at great personal expense do so because they agree with those damn teacher's unions on this very question. > Why here? Simple. Because I don't care if my burger sucks but I do care that my kid doesn't get a good early education. A preschool teacher could triple their salary without leaving the middle class. Depending on the size of their family they might even be living in poverty while working full-time. People teach for a lot of reasons, but even the most enthusiastic and altruistic person is going to bulk at that kind of a sacrifice. And understandably so.

cmdrfred 10y ago
>This of course assumes that standardized testing is actually a good mechanism for measuring outcomes. How do you propose to measure outcomes of education without testing for ability to recall and utilize the knowledge and skills taught? >A lot of people who opt-out of the public school system at great personal expense do so because they agree with those damn teacher's unions on this very question. I left school. I don't know anyone who did so for dislike of standardized testing. Instead most found the value of that education to be low compared to work experience. >Simple. Because I don't care if my burger sucks but I do care that my kid doesn't get a good early education. Why not double pilots salaries in order to prevent plane crashes? Double doctors salaries to prevent mistakes? Politicians should be paid the most under this model, imagine the utopia we'd live in if the president made a billion dollars a year. Every study I've seen has shown increasing wages doesn't have a real impact on performance. If we aren't allow to test it how do we know if we raised it too much or too little? Consider to raise teachers salaries you have to tax the local community, thus lowering the take home pay of the parents of those children. Thus worsening the home life of those children and worsening outcomes. You have to strike a balance and emotionally throwing money at teachers won't resolve anything. We need proof that outcomes are improving or declining.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  > How do you propose to measure outcomes of education without testing for ability to recall and utilize the knowledge and skills taught? I'm not. But you have the burden of evidence backward! If you want to use metrics like standardized tests in this manner, then it's your job to prove to me that standardized tests are reasonably good metrics. Why? Because forcing schools to optimize for counter-productive metrics is actively harmful! Better to have no idea how to measure than to measure the wrong thing, use that metric to make high-stakes decisions, and thereby actively harm true outcomes. > I don't know anyone who did so for dislike of standardized testing I mean parents who send their kids to private schools or home-school. Lots of them loathe standardized tests. Google will help you find the manifestos. > Why not double pilots salaries in order to prevent plane crashes? Double doctors salaries to prevent mistakes? Eventually you hit a saturation point where the return on investment becomes too low to justify the additional expense. 20k aint that point. > Instead most found the value of that education to be low compared to work experience. Well sure, if you happen to work in a trade where formal education isn't necessary. Nothing wrong with that of course! Most parents want to give their children the option to do something else, at least in their early formative years. I've no problem with my kid going to a tech school or even dropping out for on-the-job training, but I don't want to lock them into never being a doctor/lawayer/scientist before they hit puberty. > thus lowering the take home pay of the parents of those children. Thus worsening the home life of those children and worsening outcomes Do you have any evidence for this claim? Sounds extremely unlikely to me.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    You claim >But you have the burden of evidence backward! Then claim >Eventually you hit a saturation point where the return on investment becomes too low to justify the additional expense. 20k aint that point. Do you have evidence of this claim? How do you know? Please show sources. >Do you have any evidence for this claim? Sounds extremely unlikely to me. You don't believe poorer kids have worse outcomes in life? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528796/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528796/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2998067/Bright-pupils-50-worse-poor-Children-lower-income-families-likely-achieve-three-Levels-subjects-including-maths-English.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2998067/Bright-pupil... http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-children-in-poorer-families-do-worse-at-school-report-shows-a3341231.html http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-children-in-poo... https://newrepublic.com/article/123093/rich-kids-better-poor-kids-school-its-not-word-gap https://newrepublic.com/article/123093/rich-kids-better-poor...

cmdrfred 10y ago

>This of course assumes that standardized testing is actually a good mechanism for measuring outcomes. How do you propose to measure outcomes of education without testing for ability to recall and utilize the knowledge and skills taught? >A lot of people who opt-out of the public school system at great personal expense do so because they agree with those damn teacher's unions on this very question. I left school. I don't know anyone who did so for dislike of standardized testing. Instead most found the value of that education to be low compared to work experience. >Simple. Because I don't care if my burger sucks but I do care that my kid doesn't get a good early education. Why not double pilots salaries in order to prevent plane crashes? Double doctors salaries to prevent mistakes? Politicians should be paid the most under this model, imagine the utopia we'd live in if the president made a billion dollars a year. Every study I've seen has shown increasing wages doesn't have a real impact on performance. If we aren't allow to test it how do we know if we raised it too much or too little? Consider to raise teachers salaries you have to tax the local community, thus lowering the take home pay of the parents of those children. Thus worsening the home life of those children and worsening outcomes. You have to strike a balance and emotionally throwing money at teachers won't resolve anything. We need proof that outcomes are improving or declining.

throwaway729 10y ago
> How do you propose to measure outcomes of education without testing for ability to recall and utilize the knowledge and skills taught? I'm not. But you have the burden of evidence backward! If you want to use metrics like standardized tests in this manner, then it's your job to prove to me that standardized tests are reasonably good metrics. Why? Because forcing schools to optimize for counter-productive metrics is actively harmful! Better to have no idea how to measure than to measure the wrong thing, use that metric to make high-stakes decisions, and thereby actively harm true outcomes. > I don't know anyone who did so for dislike of standardized testing I mean parents who send their kids to private schools or home-school. Lots of them loathe standardized tests. Google will help you find the manifestos. > Why not double pilots salaries in order to prevent plane crashes? Double doctors salaries to prevent mistakes? Eventually you hit a saturation point where the return on investment becomes too low to justify the additional expense. 20k aint that point. > Instead most found the value of that education to be low compared to work experience. Well sure, if you happen to work in a trade where formal education isn't necessary. Nothing wrong with that of course! Most parents want to give their children the option to do something else, at least in their early formative years. I've no problem with my kid going to a tech school or even dropping out for on-the-job training, but I don't want to lock them into never being a doctor/lawayer/scientist before they hit puberty. > thus lowering the take home pay of the parents of those children. Thus worsening the home life of those children and worsening outcomes Do you have any evidence for this claim? Sounds extremely unlikely to me.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  You claim >But you have the burden of evidence backward! Then claim >Eventually you hit a saturation point where the return on investment becomes too low to justify the additional expense. 20k aint that point. Do you have evidence of this claim? How do you know? Please show sources. >Do you have any evidence for this claim? Sounds extremely unlikely to me. You don't believe poorer kids have worse outcomes in life? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528796/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528796/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2998067/Bright-pupils-50-worse-poor-Children-lower-income-families-likely-achieve-three-Levels-subjects-including-maths-English.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2998067/Bright-pupil... http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-children-in-poorer-families-do-worse-at-school-report-shows-a3341231.html http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-children-in-poo... https://newrepublic.com/article/123093/rich-kids-better-poor-kids-school-its-not-word-gap https://newrepublic.com/article/123093/rich-kids-better-poor...